End the
arms race!

THE SALT | agreement expires on Oct. 3
with no new pact in sight. Following is an
outline of the issues involved, as presented
in a leaflet by the American-Soviet Friend-
ship Council. Its call on the American
people to demand a SALT II agreement of
. their government: applies with equal force
to Canadians.

7. arms race today is a greater threat to
ube people of the world than ever in history.
Phe nuclear weapons new stockpiled could
destrey the worid many times over. In 1973,
the countries of the world were spending $30

million an hour on armies and armaments —

almost $300 billion a year.

The mere existence of these mountains of

weapons has made life less secure, not more.
Country after country is acquiring nuclear
arnis or the ability to create them. Prolifera-
tion has made it possible for nuclear
weapons to fall into the hands of organiza-
tions or even individuals.

What the world spends on arms in 4 days
couid feed all the world’s 200 million under-
nourished children fer a year. Instead, the
arms race improverishes the many as it
arms the few, robbing us of the ability to
amprove our lives. *

Yhe arms race therefore is a deuble-
edged threat. It threatens civilization with
doomsday war and terror. And it drains soci-
ety of the wealth it desperately needs to cure
sickness, provide jobs, build homes and care
‘or people.

Many national and international organi-
zations have warned of the dangers of the
spiraling arms race. In great measure, how-
ever, the peace of the world depends on rela-
tions between the two major nuclear powers,
ihe United States and the Soviet Union.

That is why the Strategic Arms Limita-
tion Talks (SALT) between the U.S. and the
USSR are so important for the future of the
world. These two countries alone agcount for
60% of all global military spending.

“Strategic Arms,”’ in the language of in-
ternational negotiations, refers to land and
sea based nuclear missiles and bombers that
can deliver nuclear bombs to the ‘‘enemy”’
country and return. Other weapons — tanks,
rifles, artillery, etc. — are referred to as
“conventional weapons.”’

The first round of SALT talks (SALT-I)
ended in October 1972 with the signing of a
Treaty on the Limitation cf Anti-Ballistic
Systems and a general Agresment on
Strategic Offensive Arms.

These were the first real steps toward
curving the arms race and reducing ihe
threat of nuclear war. They froze the quaii-
* ty of offensive missiles and put forward the

Meier 4g
<7
[ape |

A. =
fe

important principle of equal security for
both nations.

However, the SALT-I agreements did not
restrict technological advancement (‘‘more
bang for the buck’’) or strategic bombers.

Both sides agreed to ‘‘continue active
negotiations” for a lasting agreement that
would eventually lead to the reduction of of-
fensive weapons.

In 1974, President Ford and Leonid
Brezhnev met in Vladivostok at the invita-
tion of the Soviet leader. The two men agreed
to begin a second round of talks (SALT-II) to
set a ceiling on nuclear missiles. Each side
would have 2,400 delivery vehicles together
with nuclear bombs or missiles and 1,320
missiles with multiple warheads.

This number of nuclear weapons is still a
vast and threatening amount. However, had
the SALT-II agreement been signed it would
have ended the terrible upward spiral and
laid the basis for the gradual decrease in
strategic weapons. The SALT-I agreements
will expire in October 1977.

The alternative to'a SALT-IJ agreement is
no agreement at all — and a terrible upward
spiral of the arms race.

Over two years have passed since the
Vladivostok meeting in 1974. Though Secret-
ary of State Kissinger at one time said the

_SALT-II negotiations were ‘‘90% complete,”
the talks dragged on with no treaty signed.
Finally, in November 1976, the talks were
suspended until the Carter Administration
took office.

Meanwhile, concerned people and or-
ganizations around the world were becoming
alarmed at the lack of progress. A January
1977 meeting of the World Forum of Peace

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—SEPTEMBER 30, 1977—Page 6

Forces, representing activists from 70 inter-
national organizations and 115 countries, in-
cluding elected officials, trade unionists and
scholars of a wide range of political parties
and religious beliefs, urgently called for
bringing the SALT-II talks to a successful
conclusion.

Not everyone wants limits placed on nuc-
lear weapons. There are powerful political
and military forces, particularly in the Pen-
tagon and CIA, who want to remain free to
develop more destructive and more sophisti-
cated stategic weapons. They are backed by

the corporations who manufacture arms and -

profit from the arms race.

The U.S. Government has passed up
many opportunities and has put off signing
the agreement. Controversial reports have
been issued renewing the Cold War concept
of a ‘“‘Soviet threat,’’ which calls even the
Soviet civil defense system a threat to the
security of the U.S.

Meanwhile, several new weapons have
been invented that clouded the talks. The
U.S. military has developed the “‘cruise mis-
sile,’’ based on the World War II German V-1,

_ which can be launched from land, sea or air.

This relatively low-cost strategic weapon
does not fit into traditional categories and is
difficult to monitor and control. The United
States refused to include the cruise missile in
the SALT-II talks unless the Soviets agreed
to include their new ‘‘Backfire’’ bomber as
well. However advanced a craft, the
Backfire, it is said, does not have the capac-
ity to reach the U.S. with missiles and return.

These are not impossible problems to
solve — if the will is there to do it. Whether
those in our government who favor solving

SECURITY
BEGINS
AT HOME

. “comprehensive health care

them can win over those who do not, depends
on the force of U.S. public opinion.
In November, Leonid Brezhnev appealed

' publicly to President-elect Carter to inten-
sify the SALT negotiations and “‘to put anend ~

to the freeze of this important question by
Washington almost’a year ago.”
Jimmy Carter responded by agreeing

that the talks had been stalled. ‘‘I intend to ©

move aggressively to get the SALT talks off

dead center,’’ Carter said, ‘‘and maybe —
make an interim agreement relating to the

Vladivostok terms.”’

This in turn was welcomed by the Soviet
leader who said shortly before the U.S. inau-.”
guration, ‘‘We are prepared jointly with the —
new administration to accomplish a new ~

major advance in relations between our two
countries.’’ Brezhnev added that if the
SALT-II agreement were signed, ‘“‘then we

could immediately pass on to talks on more _

far-reaching measures’’ — the reduction, not
merely the limitation, of nuclear weapons.

President Carter also expressed his de-
sire to achieve the eventual reduction of
strategic weapons.

These are hopeful signs, carried out inthe ~

spirit of detente. A recent poll conducted by
the Foreign Policy Association shows that
71% of Americans favor detente with the
USSR. If Carter pursues negotiations he will
be following the desires of the vast majority
of Americans.

- But we cannot sit back complacently and
hope that the Carter Administration will
come through. U.S. foreign policy rarely
matches U.S. public opinion. We saw that in
the Vietnam war. As more and more Ameri-
cans opposed the war, Nixon rattled the
sabre harder, invading Laos and Cambodia
and bombing Hanoi.

There is a debate going on within the new @

administration. Influential public figures,

including some former high level govern-

ment executives who supported Carter’s

campaign, are lined up on both sides of the —

issue.

One group calls itself the ‘‘Committee on
the Present Danger,’’ and will challenge
anyone who tries to cut or limit military
spending. They are calling for higher levels
of spending. One member of the group even
told news reporters, ‘‘We are in a pre-war
situation.’’ These are dangerous pressures.

There are others, some of whom are now
in the Carter Administration, associated ear-
lier with the American Committee on United
States-Soviet Relations and the U.S./United
Nations Association Study Panel, who want
to respond positively to Soviet proposals that
hoth nations cut their military spending.

Who will win this argument? It depends
on us.

tty
j

the